Rocket ride

[carusoam]

Hank,

We have a similar background. The AFROTC program in engineering school introduced me to my first pair of glasses.

What a dissapointing introduction to aviation. Now I'm driven to fly on my own with the fastest four seater available...(within reason)

I believed in continuous processes and economies of scale, to switch to extrustion over injection molding.

My last project was extrusion compounding drug products for the pharma industry.

The private turbine engine is not dead. Keep hope allive....

And modern Wankels don't burn that much oil anymore...

-a-

[carusoam]

Sorry EB...

Didn't mean to intrude on this thread.

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

Hank,

I believed in continuous processes and economies of scale, to switch to extrustion over injection molding.

My last project was extrusion compounding drug products for the pharma industry.

The private turbine engine is not dead. Keep hope allive....

And modern Wankels don't burn that much oil anymore...

-a-

 

Extrusion works for continuous processes like gutters, metallic beams and apparently some pharma, but try to extrude the case for your laptop. Hint:  the inside is radically different from the outside, with locations for each circuit board, grounding wire, hinge mounts, key locations, etc., plus ribs for support so the wide flat part stays flat and doesn't warp. Other things not extrudable include syringes, the ear cups on your headset, the ear plugs on my Halo and the Royalite panels in all of our planes.

 

I'd love to see small-scale turbines in general use! Right now it just isn't practical, and if anything, demand is lower now than it may have been 20+ years ago. There really isn't anything between RC models <100 lbs. thrust and "biggie size" small turbines like the PT-6 and whatever goes into cruise missiles.

 

Mooney Rockets are outside of my price range at the moment, but I would sure enjoy the performance. Several times in the last year I've had trouble getting between WV and central NC due to weather issues [mostly icing in southern WV], and being able to climb above it would have been nice. Once I stayed an extra day, missing a Monday morning at work [darn!   ] and once I crossed the Apps at Greenville before turning north over flat ground to Lexington and approached WV from the west. Neither was an optimal solution, one cost me lots of extra fuel, but the turbo admission price is much steeper even than the extra two hours in the air and the extra day on the ground combined.

[aviatoreb]

Sorry EB...

Didn't mean to intrude on this thread.

Best regards,

-a-

 

No worry!  I am enjoying listening to the discussion entirely!  BTW, its bd32322's thread anyway since he started it.

 

A wankel airplane engine would be cool.  My wankel on my rx7 sounded really cool when I wound it up to 5 or 6k rpms.

 

It sure seems like if the demand was there, a just right size turbo prop could be invented to generate 300hp efficiently and reliably.

 

Maybe we could drive a car with it....(just silly dreaming) ...maybe like the batmobile.

[carusoam]

Silly dreaming is just the beginning phase...

Everyone should take a ride in a high powered vehicle, turbo, or large displacement, or turbine. It produces great motivation.

Hank, Extrusion provides the chocolate coating for IM's ice cream. They go well together! All those wires and their insulation...extruded. Medical tubing, extruded by the mile.

Let me know if you need some extrusion support.

Best regards,

-a-

[bd32322]

No worry!  I am enjoying listening to the discussion entirely!  BTW, its bd32322's thread anyway since he started it.

 

A wankel airplane engine would be cool.  My wankel on my rx7 sounded really cool when I wound it up to 5 or 6k rpms.

 

It sure seems like if the demand was there, a just right size turbo prop could be invented to generate 300hp efficiently and reliably.

 

Maybe we could drive a car with it....(just silly dreaming) ...maybe like the batmobile.

Jaguar is building micro turbine range extender cars. The micro turbines spool up and run when you are low on battery and power the electric drive system. The turbines are not used to Power the wheels directly, because throttle response of turbines for cars is terrible. They like to run at a certain power level and stay there. And micro turbines are much lighter than any internal combustion engine .. so thats the advantage in the car instead of an internal combustion engine hybrid car. If this catches on, the price of these micr turbines will come down at least for cars.

[aviatoreb]

Jaguar is building micro turbine range extender cars. The micro turbines spool up and run when you are low on battery and power the electric drive system. The turbines are not used to Power the wheels directly, because throttle response of turbines for cars is terrible. They like to run at a certain power level and stay there. And micro turbines are much lighter than any internal combustion engine .. so thats the advantage in the car instead of an internal combustion engine hybrid car. If this catches on, the price of these micr turbines will come down at least for cars.

 

Aha! Maybe that will power my hybrid-electric-microturbine Mooney M20K STC in 2025?!!!!

 

Meanwhile I think a Jag would be a great platform for a fiberglass shell in all black that looks like the bat mobile.  Meanwhile I will start shopping for a leather batman cowl (for my head not for my airplane).

[aviatoreb]

That is a really cool car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75

 

but...  :-(

 

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/03/17/jaguar-drops-turbines-for-hybrid-supercar/

[bd32322]

Aha! Maybe that will power my hybrid-electric-microturbine Mooney M20K STC in 2025?!!!!

 

Meanwhile I think a Jag would be a great platform for a fiberglass shell in all black that looks like the bat mobile.  Meanwhile I will start shopping for a leather batman cowl (for my head not for my airplane).

Haha .. I think there are electric experimental planes now .. Maybe their batteries can be charged similarly. That way you fly efficiently with a prop without a big honking jet engine needed to provide thrust.

Btw .. Rx8 man myself (my first car in fact .. Couldnt resist its techno geekiness)

[Hank]

Meanwhile I think a Jag would be a great platform for a fiberglass shell in all black that looks like the bat mobile.  Meanwhile I will start shopping for a leather batman cowl (for my head not for my airplane).

 

I can set you up with a long Jag whose soft top can be easily removed. Then mount your fiberglass shell. Cast Iron V-12 included, bring your own micro-turbine.

 

13 mpg around town, 17-18 on the highway [roof down/up, ~75 mph]. Pretty sheet metal, nice sound, two place and rated [if you install a tow bar] to pull 6500 lbs. Not too shabby for a sportscar! About the same performance as Dad's 4x4 Suburban, but the 'Bus will carry more people and more cargo but with a fraction of the style.

 

I'll have to keep an eye open for microturbine news.

 

Sorry, a, I no longer make medical devices using tubing. We do a fair amount of molding, but our end product is surgically introduced into the eye to permanently replace the natural lens and restore/improve vision. At my last job, we bought extruded tubing by the 18-wheeler load, several each week.

[Hank]

It sure seems like if the demand was there, a just right size turbo prop could be invented to generate 300hp efficiently and reliably.

 

This is the smallest turboprop I've ever seen. Sorry the closeups are sideways, one shows badging on the tail [Jaguar Special Edition], one is up front for the engine [Rolls Royce]. Note the feathered prop, this ain't your father's Bonanza. I hate to think what it cost to approve, but don't see it happening for our planes.

 

Winglets, too, I just noticed.

 

Man was it windy in Rapid City that day! and only 50º from the left of the runway. Tell anyone you're flying to Rapid City, they immediately warn you that RAP is to the left, don't land at the big AF base to the right. Though that 13,000' SAC runway looked nice, the tire marks from the B-52s looked >4000 long at each end. [My wife took a picture of the 430 showing the leg SUX-> KRAP, she thought it was funny that "it SUX to go to KRAP."]

[carusoam]

I remember the jag / beech relationship. But not the RR part.

[carusoam]

I'm thinking the Ovation's nose may be long enough...

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

This is the smallest turboprop I've ever seen. Sorry the closeups are sideways, one shows badging on the tail [Jaguar Special Edition], one is up front for the engine [Rolls Royce]. Note the feathered prop, this ain't your father's Bonanza. I hate to think what it cost to approve, but don't see it happening for our planes.

 

Winglets, too, I just noticed.

 

Man was it windy in Rapid City that day! and only 50º from the left of the runway. Tell anyone you're flying to Rapid City, they immediately warn you that RAP is to the left, don't land at the big AF base to the right. Though that 13,000' SAC runway looked nice, the tire marks from the B-52s looked >4000 long at each end. [My wife took a picture of the 430 showing the leg SUX-> KRAP, she thought it was funny that "it SUX to go to KRAP."]

 

There are two different companies that made STC conversions for the Bonanza A36 to a turbine, using two different turbine engines.  The tradewinds stc

 

and also our very own rocket engineering has a Bonanza STC.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/beechcraft/tradewind-turbine-bonanza.html

 

and also our very own rocket engineering:

 

http://www.turbinebonanza.com

 

The airplane you pointed out looks like this one eh - hit the embedded movie and you can listen to that wonderful turbine sound...and watch the airplane back up on beta.  Also these airplanes take off in <1000ft with all that power and land also in <1000ft using the beta prop.

 

http://www.turbinebonanza.us

 

Looks nice for $350k. Same winglets too see?  Not pressurize though.  And I am not shopping....just pointing it out.

[M016576]

I did my initial flight training in the Navy in a T-34C. Same wing and pretty much the same undercarriage as a bonanza, but a tandem cockpit with a full glass canopy. It had a PT-6A motor.... What a wonderful sound it was listening to that beautiful motor turn... That plane was 100% fun (can't fit a family of four, though, unfortunately!)!

[M016576]

There are two different companies that made STC conversions for the Bonanza A36 to a turbine, using two different turbine engines.  The tradewinds stc

 

and also our very own rocket engineering has a Bonanza STC.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/beechcraft/tradewind-turbine-bonanza.html

 

and also our very own rocket engineering:

 

http://www.turbinebonanza.com

 

The airplane you pointed out looks like this one eh - hit the embedded movie and you can listen to that wonderful turbine sound...and watch the airplane back up on beta.  Also these airplanes take off in <1000ft with all that power and land also in <1000ft using the beta prop.

 

http://www.turbinebonanza.us

 

Looks nice for $350k. Same winglets too see?  Not pressurize though.  And I am not shopping....just pointing it out.

I'm in love. Where's that guy shopping for ovations??? Buy this instead!!!!

[carusoam]

At 3,500 hours, the TBO for the Allison 25 450-hp engine is nearly double the standard piston engine. Most importantly, the Allison’s failure rate is one every 115 years. That makes the engine 100 times more reliable than a piston-aircraft engine.

$400k for the conversion. 28 gallons per hour. The 20-gallon tip tanks make up for some of its prodigious appetite.

I'm stuck in the normal category still. 310HP looks better every day.

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

I see you have discovered the other reasons that small turbines aren't popular: price and fuel burn. But they do provide performance! Thus the popularity of pistons, turbos and cubic inches a la Big Daddy Garlits (my boyhood hero).

[M016576]

I see you have discovered the other reasons that small turbines aren't popular: price and fuel burn. But they do provide performance! Thus the popularity of pistons, turbos and cubic inches a la Big Daddy Garlits (my boyhood hero).

The ful burn isn't that much more than a turbocharged io-550, particularly once you factor in that Jet-A is cheaper than 100LL. The issue is that 100k overhaul at 3200hrs or so. That's a doozy!

From a safety standpoint though, a turbine is waaaaaayyyy better.... And that's worth more than the 60kts or so in my books.

[bd32322]

The ful burn isn't that much more than a turbocharged io-550, particularly once you factor in that Jet-A is cheaper than 100LL. The issue is that 100k overhaul at 3200hrs or so. That's a doozy!

From a safety standpoint though, a turbine is waaaaaayyyy better.... And that's worth more than the 60kts or so in my books.

If its 100k thats not bad considering the TBO is twice that of turbocharged big bore engines and so is the overhaul cost.

[carusoam]

Factory reman of a TN550 is approx. $75k...

But there is no STC for either for the Ovation.

Looks like it could fit though, doesn't it?

If 100LL ever goes away, I'll have a plan B ready to go.

Best regards,

-a-

[aaronk25]

I was thinking about this thread yesterday as I flew from Rochester mn to Chicago to saint louis back to Chicago then home to Rochester.

I had my J wound out at full steam at 100 rop at 162kts and was dreaming about putting another 40kts or more down with the rocket. I could have climbed to fl240 and put another 80kts on the tail......very appealing.

What altitude do you chose in a rocket when you have a tail wind of 15kts at 3000 a heading wind of 5kts at 6k, head wind of 25kts at 12k and even worse 60kts at on the nose at 18k......what altitude do you fly at with the turbo?? This is what I had on the way home yesterday and I tucked down low at 3k with the J and tried to watch for geese.

[bd32322]

I was thinking about this thread yesterday as I flew from Rochester mn to Chicago to saint louis back to Chicago then home to Rochester.

I had my J wound out at full steam at 100 rop at 162kts and was dreaming about putting another 40kts or more down with the rocket. I could have climbed to fl240 and put another 80kts on the tail......very appealing.

What altitude do you chose in a rocket when you have a tail wind of 15kts at 3000 a heading wind of 5kts at 6k, head wind of 25kts at 12k and even worse 60kts at on the nose at 18k......what altitude do you fly at with the turbo?? This is what I had on the way home yesterday and I tucked down low at 3k with the J and tried to watch for geese.

I have never been able to go full steam in my J at 3000 feet just because it gets bumpy and hitting those at 140-150 KIAS is not fun. So I invariably have to slow down. Even in the J it seems better to accept a little headwind in exchange for a smooth ride (turns out faster, since I dont have to slow down for bumps or every time I enter a bumpy cumulus)

Your question is an interesting one however. I would probably fly "slow" at 10-12k feet burning 15 gph and getting 185 KTAS - numbers are from rocket - i dont know what a real rocket does. I will hopefully be above the annoying small cumulus and in smooth air. But on the way back with a tailwind I recoup my losses in a big way. So on a round trip, fuel consumption gets reasonably close to a J in such onditions favoring turbo aircraft (disproportionately fast tail winds up high)

In a no wind situation, the J will definitely win hands own at efficiency. The rocket will drink more gas but get you there faster.

[aviatoreb]

In a no wind situation, the J will definitely win hands own at efficiency. The rocket will drink more gas but get you there faster.

 

That's right.  

 

Looking at today's weather from KMDW to KRST and noting that it is just over an hour with nice winds aloft, and using weathermeister as I do to get the suggested altitudes/speeds/total fuel burn and note that I don't get all wrapped up in those numbers to try and save 1 gallon by climbing higher than nesc... I would probably fly east bound at 17 or 19k and west bound at somewhere from 8 to 12k.  Higher the better going east bound but on short trip like an hour it isn't worth the trouble to go much higher.  East bound 10k "or so" I find to be a nice balance of smooth ride, quieter less crowded airspace (birds and other airplanes both) and a built in glide range without suffering too much head wind ducking below the higher winds higher up - if it is a light wind aloft maybe I would go 14k.  If I were flying over very hostile terrain like a lake I would just go ahead and fly 16 or 18 going east even and not worry about the 5 min it takes me longer to get there.

[aviatoreb]

I'm in love. Where's that guy shopping for ovations??? Buy this instead!!!!

 

I am really surprised to see that airplane listed at $350k - last time I looked like 2 years ago the best priced one was $500k.  Maybe it will go for less even. Still out of my price range but not in the stratosphere.  That is quite a nice plane considering you have 6 seats, short field and rougher field capability (reading more closely you can operate out of a 600 ft runway - in theory), super speed, but maybe most appealing of all things, I would enjoy tremendously the turbine reliability.

 

reading: "At 3,500 hours, the TBO for the Allison 25 450-hp engine is nearly double the standard piston engine. Most importantly, the Allison’s failure rate is one every 115 years. That makes the engine 100 times more reliable than a piston-aircraft engine."

 

there are a few lessons in there.  

1) As noted, if 3500 is tbo then that is like 2 tbo's of a piston so if the tbo overhaul costs twice as much then it is the same budget - EXCEPT - don't forget the hot section inspection at mid-time is something like 25k.  Still if tbo costs 100k and hot section is 25k then 125k for 3500 hrs is not out of scale compared to 50k for a major overhaul on a tsio520nb with a tbo of 1600.

2) the failure rate of 100 times better than a single piston engine is better than the failure rate of both engines going down even on a twin.  So in terms of safety you are safer in a single turbine than a twin piston and I think it is more fair to compare the fuel burn to a piston twin and the speeds are a better comparison too - and a singe turbine beats the twin piston in all categories, speed, fuel burn, simplicity to fly, and certainly simplicity to handle the worst twin scenario which is one engine out on take off that occupies most of the twin training and currency.  Also cost of engines - how much does a engine tbo of a single turbine compare to a tbo of TWO engines in say a Cessna 310?

3) Fuel.  Okay, today avgas is often $1 more per gallon than jet fuel, but in many parts of the world I have heard numbers like in europe of $12/gal for avgas and $5 or $6for jet fuel.  That could happen here.

 

Anyone notice the climb?  2500ft/mn through 10k.  That's 4 min to 10k.  Plus it descends better with those big prop blades flattened out.  I bet on the same mission KMDW to KRST I remarked on above, that I would fly this turbine bonanza at 21k east bound and 16 or 18 west bound.  The fuel burn and the higher climb rate being the changing factor.  In my rocket, I have been through 10k in under 7 min in my rocket by the way, and to 16 k in under 14 min (and similarly for other altitudes but that is all I have timed).